No jocks: How much $ saved?

[radiophile]

Ben, WRNB, Praise, Sunny, WJJZ. All have either no jocks or few that are live and local.
Anyone want to speculate or do some math to figure out how much a station saves per year by having no jocks in Philadelphia?
I'm just curious. Big morning shows may cost a hefty amount of change. But does not having midday, afternoon and evening jocks (and weekenders) really save that much money? I'm skeptical.
Or, is not having jocks just something that a local market manager does to be able to say to corporate, "See, I'm cutting costs"?
Discuss.

 

[crisisbroadcast]

> Ben, WRNB, Praise, Sunny, WJJZ. All have either no jocks or
> few that are live and local.
> Anyone want to speculate or do some math to figure out how
> much a station saves per year by having no jocks in
> Philadelphia?
> I'm just curious. Big morning shows may cost a hefty amount
> of change. But does not having midday, afternoon and evening
> jocks (and weekenders) really save that much money? I'm
> skeptical.
> Or, is not having jocks just something that a local market
> manager does to be able to say to corporate, "See, I'm
> cutting costs"?
> Discuss.

Not being sure what the average salary offered by each of the station owners in question is, I'm not all that willing to speculate as to what the actual savings is for not having jocks, but I am willing to say this: there also then must be savings for eliminating the need for support staff.

I'll use for my example WPPZ. The whole station is a computer in a room somewhere. Because PPZ isn't a "station" in the traditional sense -- in a building, either shared with another station or on its own -- you no longer need receptionists, janitors, (as many) engineers, workers to maintain the building, or any other staff needed to maintain the station's "housing." You still need the core group (engineers, etc. -- something I imagine can just be outsourced anyway), but you have eliminated the need to spend money on the people who make it to air AND don't make it to air.

I realize all of the stations mentioned here are part of a cluster and these support staff would exist anyway, but the principle carries through in the fact that more hours would be spent working on and maintaining (a) studio(s) for these stations if they weren't computerized, meaning this theory still holds true even in these cases.

It seems to me that the savings goes beyond the jocks. I would be curious to see though what is saved in that particular column in the ledger though, if anyone has any insight.
<P ID="signature">______________
Chris Roberts
fifthphoenix.com / fpxmedia.com
phoenixvillecommunity.com</P>

 

[saintrichard]

From what I have been told, its not only the money aspect, its the personalty clashes and people getting big heads too fast which messes up the whole works. Owners and operators want the whole thing to function with the least bit of stress. Years back I loved the old WCAU-FM automation, especially when the tapes would not match up and you would hear Jim, Gene or Long John say that was "Surfing USA" by the "Beach Boys" and "I want to Hold Your Hand", just played, then "Surfing USA" came on 15 minutes later, it was a real funny thing to hear. In fact I have some of those bloopers on tape, the other automation was WIFI 92 with the Hit Parade format, I think that automation was not local and it did not mess up like WCAU-FM. What I am trying to say I guess is when WIFI went live there were many clashes especially with Max DeCarlo and WCAU-FM probably had problems also. We can go on and on with WMGM/WSTW when they were Rock automation, I guess its easier to run a station when its like a ghost town.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Problem is, it's much easier to determine (on paper at least) how much you're saving by cutting back, than how much you would have made if you had made the proper investment.
The former is easy to calculate; the latter is an intangible and requires some vision and imagination, traits in short supply among today's broadcast "suits"...

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Many of us like to lament about how the sound of radio isn't quite as good as in the days of "personality" radio. The younger listeners were not around during those days and have grown up with the "FM sound". Most younger people I talk with do not want chatter from the jock. They want music, traffic and weather. Most do not want any news at all which is probably why FM stations generally do not air local or network newscasts as the AM stations did during their heyday of popularity. The average listener today doesn't even notice that the voice may be voice tracked or like Dililah's show is a satellite syndicated program and not local at all. I can invision the FM dial becoming more voice tracked and more satellite music shows. Isn't that what XM satellite radio is? Obviously AM will continue to use even more satellite programming with less local content. Philly's KYW and Wilmington's WILM, have local news programming during both morning and afternoon drive time. WDEL is live and local during the morning drive, but airs ABC radio's Sean Hannity during the afternoon drive. In spite of their local content both WDEL and WILM go to the bird during non-drive times. So far KYW hasn't cut their local content and gone to the bird, but who knows that could even happen at 1060 some time in the future. So basically I see "terrestial radio" as becoming the free version of satellite radio. Both will convey their programs via satellites. Local content will be the exception rather than the rule. The larger broadcasting companies, like a Clear Channel may continue to keep key voices and use them to voice track and have mini-networks of their own programming and will probably use satellites too to convey their programs to their sister stations around the nation.

I'm sure the less live on air staff station management has to deal with cuts down expenses, stress, and the uncertainties that come with dealing with employees. Vacations, sick time, family emergencies,etc cause the PD to have to find a fill in jock or pay overtime to one of the other on air staff, etc to cover while so and so is out. Those sorts of headaches are gone with satellite programming.

Radio continues to evolve just as any business does. Technology is one of the leading factors in this change. Most companies today have far fewer "secretaries" (today they are called Administrative Assistants) than in years past. The reason, most employees now have a computer at their desk that they themselves can use to type whatever typing they need have done rather than having to wait for a secretary to do the typing. Just like a radio station, technology has replaced the DJ and that trend will only continue as radio is a business and that business will cut whatever costs it can to make the most possible profit it can. Just as in the early 1950's when magnetic tape cut back the need have as many employees at radio stations then, so too the computer and digial technology today is cutting back even more people from radio careers. Time marches on.

 

[crisisbroadcast]

> Problem is, it's much easier to determine (on paper at
> least) how much you're saving by cutting back, than how much
> you would have made if you had made the proper investment.
> The former is easy to calculate; the latter is an intangible
> and requires some vision and imagination, traits in short
> supply among today's broadcast "suits"...

Very good insight!
<P ID="signature">______________
Chris Roberts
fifthphoenix.com / fpxmedia.com
phoenixvillecommunity.com</P>

 

[BobAltimari]

> > Ben, WRNB, Praise, Sunny, WJJZ. All have either no jocks
> or
> > few that are live and local.
> > Anyone want to speculate or do some math to figure out how
>
> > much a station saves per year by having no jocks in
> > Philadelphia?
> > I'm just curious. Big morning shows may cost a hefty
> amount
> > of change. But does not having midday, afternoon and
> evening
> > jocks (and weekenders) really save that much money? I'm
> > skeptical.
> > Or, is not having jocks just something that a local market
>
> > manager does to be able to say to corporate, "See, I'm
> > cutting costs"?
> > Discuss.
>
> Not being sure what the average salary offered by each of
> the station owners in question is, I'm not all that willing
> to speculate as to what the actual savings is for not having
> jocks, but I am willing to say this: there also then must be
> savings for eliminating the need for support staff.
>
> I'll use for my example WPPZ. The whole station is a
> computer in a room somewhere. Because PPZ isn't a "station"
> in the traditional sense -- in a building, either shared
> with another station or on its own -- you no longer need
> receptionists, janitors, (as many) engineers, workers to
> maintain the building, or any other staff needed to maintain
> the station's "housing." You still need the core group
> (engineers, etc. -- something I imagine can just be
> outsourced anyway), but you have eliminated the need to
> spend money on the people who make it to air AND don't make
> it to air.

I would ASSUME WPPZ is being run out of the Radio One complex on the river in Conshy. I will also go so far as to acquiesce that there's only one air studio, mainly used for WPHI. Squirreled off in the corner is the automation and transmission computers used for WPPZ as well as sister WRNB. One engineer probably maintains the equipment for all three signals. One receptionist, one GM, one PD/OM, and a sales staff that sells all three as a package.

I would suppose there are some stations out in East Gebip which are mom and pop. The owner is probably a licensed engineer and hosts the morning show, while the wife or business partner does the news and is the sidekick. Then wifey doubles as the station receptionist after the morning show is over. Owner/engineer/morning show host. And he already owns it, so no reason to give himself an ON AIR salary.

> I realize all of the stations mentioned here are part of a
> cluster and these support staff would exist anyway, but the
> principle carries through in the fact that more hours would
> be spent working on and maintaining (a) studio(s) for these
> stations if they weren't computerized, meaning this theory
> still holds true even in these cases.

You could probably set an all automation system up so that, when something tanks, it will send out an automatic page to the chief engineer alerting him to which station in the cluster is offline. And he could probably even dial in from home or across a secure server and tweak away without even leaving the house, unless it was a malfunction at the transmitter physical plant.

> It seems to me that the savings goes beyond the jocks. I
> would be curious to see though what is saved in that
> particular column in the ledger though, if anyone has any
> insight.
>

Low overhead = more profit/more $$ that goes into the coffers.

(of course, I could be wrong....but this is 2K5, anything is possible).
<P ID="signature">______________
FOX News Alert: YOU SUCK!!! Ya like apples?</P>

 

[Ed_Hoeheck]

> > Problem is, it's much easier to determine (on paper at
> > least) how much you're saving by cutting back, than how
> much
> > you would have made if you had made the proper investment.
>
> > The former is easy to calculate; the latter is an
> intangible
> > and requires some vision and imagination, traits in short
> > supply among today's broadcast "suits"...
>
> Very good insight!
>


I agree with the above...and someone mentioned the support staff savings as well. But, there are a few other things you should consider.
1. If you can get rid of air talent you save money and headaches. Air talent can improve and grow...and so will the salary. (I have to tell you I have very little respect for most GM's or PD's. I have known only 3 that I would consider bright.
2. Health benifits...and that is a MAJOR, MAJOR cost. I think it's "one" reason why mega-companies started looking for ways cut costs.
3. Use interns and board ops? Sure, pay them 20 thousand. They can also drive the van to personal appearances.

So, here goes a guess.
Morning team... 120 thousand plus health benifits
Mid-day ........55,000 plus health benifits
After Drive ....65,000 plus health
Evening ........35,000 plus health
over night .....30,000 plus health

Cost for air talent 305 thousand per year, plus health at 15,000 per shift(75,000)

Comes out 380 thousand (not inclusing weekends)

Board-ops come out to about 100 thousand per year (not including health benifits (75,000)


So, to me it looks like 175 thousand vrs. 380 thousand

Now this is really rough but it is ball park. Add is weekends and other stuff and you have a number.

But think about this....air talent vrs. board ops...how much loss in creativity?
Imagation? Life? See, not much.

So what do we do about it?

Thanks from listening (thank you Tom)

Ed Hoeheck

 

[Jim_Hicks]

There is a way, of course, to cut the health benefit and pension costs. You simply schedule the employees for 30 hours per week. This technique has been used by many broadcast companies. You alternate night, weekend and overnight jocks so that you can avoid benefits. Now with most stations v/t overnights, you have a real savings. WPEN even went to alternating afternoon jocks to achieve the same results.

To figure total costs of jocks, use salary and add anywhere from 25% to 40%. By the time you include health, insurance, employer taxes per employee, pension, and cost factor in vacation and sick-leave, the cost per employee is significantly above the salary. In addition to working in radio for a LONG time, I also have working for corporations in salary/benefit offices, budget offices and cost estimating. It is amazing how expensive an employee is, on top of salary. Of course I doubt CC minds paying their chiefs big bonuses, but they hate paying jocks anything!

> > > Problem is, it's much easier to determine (on paper at
> > > least) how much you're saving by cutting back, than how
> > much
> > > you would have made if you had made the proper
> investment.
> >
> > > The former is easy to calculate; the latter is an
> > intangible
> > > and requires some vision and imagination, traits in
> short
> > > supply among today's broadcast "suits"...
> >
> > Very good insight!
> >
>
>
> I agree with the above...and someone mentioned the support
> staff savings as well. But, there are a few other things you
> should consider.
> 1. If you can get rid of air talent you save money and
> headaches. Air talent can improve and grow...and so will the
> salary. (I have to tell you I have very little respect for
> most GM's or PD's. I have known only 3 that I would consider
> bright.
> 2. Health benifits...and that is a MAJOR, MAJOR cost. I
> think it's "one" reason why mega-companies started looking
> for ways cut costs.
> 3. Use interns and board ops? Sure, pay them 20 thousand.
> They can also drive the van to personal appearances.
>
> So, here goes a guess.
> Morning team... 120 thousand plus health benifits
> Mid-day ........55,000 plus health benifits
> After Drive ....65,000 plus health
> Evening ........35,000 plus health
> over night .....30,000 plus health
>
> Cost for air talent 305 thousand per year, plus health at
> 15,000 per shift(75,000)
>
> Comes out 380 thousand (not inclusing weekends)
>
> Board-ops come out to about 100 thousand per year (not
> including health benifits (75,000)
>
>
> So, to me it looks like 175 thousand vrs. 380 thousand
>
> Now this is really rough but it is ball park. Add is
> weekends and other stuff and you have a number.
>
> But think about this....air talent vrs. board ops...how much
> loss in creativity?
> Imagation? Life? See, not much.
>
> So what do we do about it?
>
> Thanks from listening (thank you Tom)
>
> Ed Hoeheck
>

 

[pifflestick]

> There is a way, of course, to cut the health benefit and
> pension costs. You simply schedule the employees for 30
> hours per week. This technique has been used by many
> broadcast companies. You alternate night, weekend and
> overnight jocks so that you can avoid benefits. Now with
> most stations v/t overnights, you have a real savings. WPEN
> even went to alternating afternoon jocks to achieve the same
> results.
>
> To figure total costs of jocks, use salary and add anywhere
> from 25% to 40%. By the time you include health, insurance,
> employer taxes per employee, pension, and cost factor in
> vacation and sick-leave, the cost per employee is
> significantly above the salary. In addition to working in
> radio for a LONG time, I also have working for corporations
> in salary/benefit offices, budget offices and cost
> estimating. It is amazing how expensive an employee is, on
> top of salary. Of course I doubt CC minds paying their
> chiefs big bonuses, but they hate paying jocks anything!
>
> > > > Problem is, it's much easier to determine (on paper at
>
> > > > least) how much you're saving by cutting back, than
> how
> > > much
> > > > you would have made if you had made the proper
> > investment.
> > >
> > > > The former is easy to calculate; the latter is an
> > > intangible
> > > > and requires some vision and imagination, traits in
> > short
> > > > supply among today's broadcast "suits"...
> > >
> > > Very good insight!
> > >
> >
> >
> > I agree with the above...and someone mentioned the support
>
> > staff savings as well. But, there are a few other things
> you
> > should consider.
> > 1. If you can get rid of air talent you save money and
> > headaches. Air talent can improve and grow...and so will
> the
> > salary. (I have to tell you I have very little respect for
>
> > most GM's or PD's. I have known only 3 that I would
> consider
> > bright.
> > 2. Health benifits...and that is a MAJOR, MAJOR cost. I
> > think it's "one" reason why mega-companies started looking
>
> > for ways cut costs.
> > 3. Use interns and board ops? Sure, pay them 20 thousand.
> > They can also drive the van to personal appearances.
> >
> > So, here goes a guess.
> > Morning team... 120 thousand plus health benifits
> > Mid-day ........55,000 plus health benifits
> > After Drive ....65,000 plus health
> > Evening ........35,000 plus health
> > over night .....30,000 plus health
> >
> > Cost for air talent 305 thousand per year, plus health at
> > 15,000 per shift(75,000)
> >
> > Comes out 380 thousand (not inclusing weekends)
> >
> > Board-ops come out to about 100 thousand per year (not
> > including health benifits (75,000)
> >
> >
> > So, to me it looks like 175 thousand vrs. 380 thousand
> >
> > Now this is really rough but it is ball park. Add is
> > weekends and other stuff and you have a number.
> >
> > But think about this....air talent vrs. board ops...how
> much
> > loss in creativity?
> > Imagation? Life? See, not much.
> >
> > So what do we do about it?
> >
> > Thanks from listening (thank you Tom)
> >
> > Ed Hoeheck
> >
>
Don't forget the cost of all the coffee and toilet paper those damned employees use. It ads up. Give me one good robot with a cold fusion engine and a 9 voice **** sapien vox simulator and I'll give you good radio for about 35 cents a day. And that's in 2042 dollars!